set to announce 
major Supreme Court 
reforms 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-set-announce-support-major-214905613.html
Top Poster of the Day:
corp
Current Registered Users: 30,933
Welcome to the Marsey News Network, the official news hole of rdrama! This is where you post anything that happened on the news. Politics, general news, good news, any new in any topic that doesn't have it's own hole from any source is welcome! However, if you post an unreliable source, it may be flaired appropriately. Wingcucks welcome and slapfights encouraged!
Rules:
1. Follow sitewide rules
2. Post News
3. Have Fun! Don't be boring.
4. No chudrama-tier content. Rightoid news sources are allowed, but anything that belongs in chudrama or could get the site deplatformed will be moved to chudrama.
5. @DarkDeity and
@Spiderman has the right to post whatever news they want in this hole
6. Be nice.
/h/mnn SETTINGS /h/mnn MODS /h/mnn LOG /h/mnn EXILEES /h/mnn FOLLOWERS /h/mnn BLOCKERS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
itll likely: a) backfire, 2) wont be done unless he gets elected, so itll backfire, or D) actually work and work quite well, but be done hypocritically like imposing age and term limits for thee but not for me
assuming he is doing this at all, but it's hilarious he couldve done ALL this but is waiting until he knows for a fact he has a high chance of getting kicked out of the door. hey maybe doing good things gets you elected!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It would take a constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen any time soon. If you proposed an amendment that said mother cats have the right to feed their kittens it would turn into some partisan shitshow and total deadlock.
The only way you could get that kind of political agreement today is if you used force. Which will probably happen soon because there's shit that absolutely must get done (paying the national debt).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Would it? Nothing about the court is defined in the constitution, it just spells out that one exists. The court has pretty much usurped whatever role it currently has, which I think would mean they would simply rule that whatever Biden does to interfere is against the rules because they say so.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
We've spent over 1T on Ukraine. Last I checked were still paying off the actual war we were in over a decade ago that cost over 1T. Let's start there.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
1 trillion to see Russians die? Good deal ngl.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Get to kill test new weapons for the next war and kill Russians without losing any blood with a bit of government monopoly money and people are mad about this?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I wish they were using new weapons. The world is just watching Russkies getting bodied by 20 year old tech.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Older in a lot of cases. All that Cold War armament getting to live out its twilight years finally getting to do what it was built for
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
First: It's THE Ukraine, second, building Bagram Air Force Base was an extension of ping pong diplomacy....aka handing over control of the area to China. Bigot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yawn, who cares it was a trillion dollars r-slur. Nobody gave a shit about Ukraine before the invasion and they sure as heck don't care about it now
Give it all to the Chinese, they're clearly superior
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's THE Ukraine. If you can't be civil OR informed, that's on you bigot. Be better bigot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's only one Ukraine, what you are talking about.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'd unironically oppose this vehemently
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Actually I would too. I think it's a good thing, but not necessarily a right. I was trying to think of something that everyone would agree on fast and I vaguely remembered some axiom from 100 years ago something like "nobody lost an election because they supported dogs or motherhood". I may have gotten it mixed it up with some other one about theater though, something like when that French guy said "to make a movie all you need is a girl and a gun". I think there's an earlier variation of that that involves a dog.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ππ§
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's r-slurred and won't work. It's like his student loan shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Next week "Supreme Court rules case law from 1794 says people of afflicted by madness cant run for president" clarifying their intention of "madness" meant poor mental facilities
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
If, for example, the 18 year amendment was implemented, that means Thomas, Alito and Roberts would have to retire. Fine, if Biden thinks he/Harris will win the election and then get to appoint 3 new liberal justices.
But if Trump wins, he gets to pick 3 new conservative justices. Sotomayor is nearly 15 years on the court, which means that towards the end of the second Trump administration, he would get to pick a fourth new conservative judge. Kagan is nearly 14 years on the bench to date, that might mean she'd be term limited right at the end of Trump's time.
So he could, if he won the election, and this 18 year limit was in place, get 2 new conservative judges in addition to replacing the 3 who would have to retire. That would, in theory, leave Ketanji Brown as the sole liberal judge on the Supreme Court. Not a good idea for the Democrats to be pushing this, since they really have no guarantee of winning the election. They could do, but it's too risky to mess around and find out.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context